please help. I want a zoom lens for my Nikon N65

[kyra_haigh]

I have a Nikon N65 camera with a 28-70 lens. I love taking pictures

and would like to be able to zoom into my subjects more with another

lens. I take mostly candid pictures of people. I am looking for an

easy to use lens that takes nice pictures. I am looking at the

Tamron 70-300 lens and the Tamron 80-210 lens. I am open to other

lenses as well but I'd like to stay under $200. I want to be able

to be very flexible with my lens and I am worried that if I buy the

300 zoom lens, that I will have trouble getting clear pictures or I

won't be able to use the camera indoors or in dimmer lighting. On

the other hand, I like the 70-300 lens because it has a macro

feature on it so I can get super close to my subject which I think I

may not be able to do with the 80-210 zoom. I really need help with

this as you can see I don't know very much about cameras or lenses.

[harry_akiyoshi]

The macro feature on the 70-300 zoom is of limited usefulness. A better bet is to buy a 3T or 4T Nikon close-up adapter and use it with an 80-200. The Nikon 80-200 f/4~5.6 is actually a decent lens to do this with, plus it's pretty cheap. It's not a stellar lens, but it's certainly adequate for most uses.

 

However, it won't be easy to use indoors without very high-speed film (think ISO 1600 and up) unless you shoot in very, very well-lit rooms. For shooting indoors, by far the best thing you can do is buy a 50mm 1.8. They're cheap, sharp, and fast enough to use in very low light.

[arnabdas]

You should seriously consider the Nikon 70-300 ED zoom. It yields great results with Nikon 5T/6T or Canon 500D diopters.

[alex_lofquist]

I would tend to avoid zooms that go to 300mm, as anecdotal evidence suggests that most are not sharp beyond about 200mm. I personally prefer something in the 70/80-200/210 range. They often have maximum apertures of about f/3.5-f/4.5 where the Xmm-300mm usually max out at f/5.6. As far as macros are concerned, you are well served by using "diopters" on the lens rather than concerning yourself with the closest focussing capability, as it is seldom in the true "macro" range.

[hayward]

Check out www.keh.com - going used will help your budget significantly. The indoors limitations on either of the lenses you describe are about the same at the lens you have now, except being longer, you need shorter shutter speeds. Perosnally, I would get a zoom that reaches 300 - it really opens things up with children and candids.

[al_tan]

Hi Kyra,

 

I agree with Alex on the sharpness beyond 200. I have used the 70-300 ED at 300mm and found that sharpness at about 250mm onwards is compromised.

 

Anyway, the 70-300 would be a tad too slow for indoor/available light shots. A cheaper alternative is to get a higher speed film with this lens but you'd have to put up with the graininess.

 

My experience with my 70-300 is this: I almost never really use the 300mm setting and rarely go beyond 250mm for candid people shots.

 

If you're able to loan one, why not try and see how the 70-300 fits your photography before deciding?

 

Personally, I feel that the 80-210 would be more useful, IMO.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

I am one of the 'anecdotes' that Alex might be referring to on softness at 300mm on the 70-300, but it's 'relative'. I think for Kyra (based on the way she framed the question) it would be a dandy lens, 'expanding her horizons' as it were. Us 'lens snobs' know that the 70-300 is no substitute for any Nikon 300mm prime (ok, it gives my ancient 'P Auto' a run for its money) but it's good value for money and she will very likely make shots with it that please her no end, shots she's not getting now.

[david_h._hartman]

I think the 70~300/4.0~5.6D ED could be a good choice but don�t plan on indoor shots without flash. To get clear pictures with the 70~300 you�ll need to keep the shutter speeds high at the long end. The old rule is 1/(focal length) but you�ll do better with 1/(focal length x 2), e.g. 1/600ths or faster at 300mm. If you back up the zoom with an AF 50/1.8D or AF 35/2.0D you�ll have the ability to take photos in dimmer light without flash.

 

If the 70~300/4.0~5.6D ED is too expensive new you might consider use. The price for the US version at B&H Photo is $304.95 - $35.00 rebate or $269.95. That only $5.00 more than gray market. If quality matters at all I wouldn�t compromise more than this. $70.00 is about the price of a meal for four at a medium sort of family restaurant. I think photos of family and friends are worth bending the budget a little.

 

All the best,

[andry_hermawan]

if you dont really care about image quality, try nikkor 70-300mm AF-G, it's cheap, new one is about $130 us warranty or $105 grey market, but again u need flash for indoor or longer exposure, the result? not bad at all, actually pretty good. for low light situation, u need big aperture opening like f1.8 or f1.4 (the smaller the number, the bigger the opening), but those lenses are expensive ($200 ++++), but 50mm f1.8 is about $100 or even lower. I suggest get the zoom 70-300 since u like candids.

Happy shopping.....